Political Advances Amid Litigational Defeats: The Indirect Effects of Crimtort Causes

39 Pages Posted: 22 Feb 2011 Last revised: 21 Apr 2011

See all articles by William Haltom

William Haltom

University of Puget Sound

Michael McCann

University of Washington - Department of Political Science

Abstract

McIntosh and Cates [Multi-Party Litigation: The Strategic Context, 2010] and Silverstein [Law's Allure: How Law Shapes, Constrains, Saves, and Kills Politics, 2009] have argued the severe deficiencies of civil suits and class action litigation for advancing consumerist or regulatory causes. In the proposed paper, we report results of content-analyses that suggest that even lawsuits that were tactical defeats have yielded strategic advantages. Mass-media coverage of litigation against makers or marketers of cigaretees, firearms, silicone implants, and fast or fatty foods reveals that plaintiffs reframe defendants in the court of public opinion even as plaintiffs lose case after case in courtrooms and juryrooms. We focus on crim-torts, the use of civil suits to criminalize corporate defendants, as an public-relations boon even in quixotic crusades.

Suggested Citation

Haltom, William and McCann, Michael, Political Advances Amid Litigational Defeats: The Indirect Effects of Crimtort Causes. Western Political Science Association 2011 Annual Meeting Paper , Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1766839

William Haltom (Contact Author)

University of Puget Sound ( email )

1500 N Warner St.
Tacoma, WA 98416
United States

Michael McCann

University of Washington - Department of Political Science ( email )

101 Gowen Hall
Box 353530
Seattle, WA 98195
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
36
Abstract Views
394
PlumX Metrics